Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:30:29 -0800
Reply-To: Scott Daniel - Shazam <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Scott Daniel - Shazam <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
Subject: Re: ECU relocation / new 1.9 harnesses
In-Reply-To: <ac1f198b0712112117s60074886yd731507511919b2c@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
No kidding it's about what things cost.
But it costs basically nothing to relocate the ecu to under the rear seat,
and as you say, no special waterproof box needed, etc.
Just consider you are going to make 200,000 of one model in a year.
If you save 1 dollar on a part.................well, do the math as they
say.
It's always the best balance of content, reliability, and low cost.
Companies like Chevrolet, in my opinion, push it really hard on the 'keep
the cost down' thing. Like that is priority number one. Ford too.
On the other hand, back in 70's and 80's, if you look at a Mercedes and
you see the size and beauty and quality of the parts...........you can see
that making it really safe, and long-liffed was the priority, and cost was
less of a consideration.
Now I'd say they fight for the consumer dollar and keep the price down like
everyone, though still on a higher scale compared to the 'regular
manufactures'
It's always about cost/benefit ratio.
And cost/weight/strength blend when considering the materials used, and
construction cost of course too.
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: jakiba@bostig.com [mailto:jakiba@bostig.com] On Behalf Of Jim Akiba
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 9:17 PM
To: Scott Daniel - Shazam
Cc: vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com
Subject: Re: ECU relocation / new 1.9 harnesses
They likely did it just because it's cheaper/easier than making it
weatherproof(take GM for instance, it certainly isn't because it can't
be done well, or is emphatically a better practice). Number one rule
in tier 1 auto manufacturing, wisdom passed to me and on to you, if
there is no obvious overwhelming reason why, the answer is usually
money. If it still doesn't make sense, it's just a matter of
re-evaluating the direction, flow, and path of the money. Cynical?
Yeah. True? I think so. The only times it seems this doesn't occur are
usually regarded as mistakes later on.. but sometimes not.
Jim Akiba
On 12/11/07, Scott Daniel - Shazam <scottdaniel@turbovans.com> wrote:
> 2.1 engine in 86. They didn't do it to use up more wire; they did it
> because it's an improvement.
> Scott
> www.turbovans.com
| 
